I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
Because the two in this thread that are doing that are presumptuous, shallow bigots.
Oh for sure.
One is real and one is self imagined.
It's called a gun show loop hole because the enthusiasts who know exactly how many weapons they need to have to not be considered a dealer are there. Essentially dealers disguised as private sellers. A current background check (less than 7 days old) should be a simple thing to accomplish before purchasing a weapon from anyone.
ARs are semi automatic weapons. So is a Glock, so is a lever action rifle. What is the acceptable limit? Caliber size? Magazine capacity? How scary it looks? Rights aren’t subject to whims or feelings.
Oh I'm just deducing your intention based on your previous comment referencing "gun-toting rednecks". You see, I'm able to follow a conversation. Know what I mean?
Not even close. George had led multiple militia regiments in various battles prior to the revolutionary war. He didn’t just round up a group of guys whose military experience was shooting their empty Coors cans in the woods to overthrow the Brits.
The Shot Heard 'Round The World: April 19th, 1775. One must note however, that that initial impulse or incentive arose from what was then conceived as blatant inconsiderate arrogance/ignorance of the British Parliament.
Case in point: The Sugar Act of 1764. There's also The Stamp Act as-well, so by all means feel free to "click that link" should your curiosity influence you to do so.
The point in reference is that the initial concern of the colonies was mainly in regards to the ultimate intent of the British Parliament; the very question that, in fact, ignited the American Revolution, or in a more fitting term, The United States War of Independence, with the reasoning or main issue simply being the concern of taxation without representation!
Just thought I'd mention such. Later.
This is why I love threads like this. On one hand the media uses these events to unjustly target gun owners because of a few bad apples. All gun owners shouldn’t be targeted because criminals commit gun crimes. Oh wait. It was one of them foreigners that did this. Well ban them all.
This is the big question to me. Guns are now being targeted because they look scary, or kind of like those guns the military uses.
Cosmetics should not be a deciding factor.
Good. I'm glad you aren't categorizing all gun owners as gun-toting rednecks. My mistake.
Weapons are not just for sport, but for defense. The "hunting" argument doesn't hold because defense weapons aren't specifically for hunting, and Americans aren't restricted to buying weapons for that purpose. People often do buy them and use them for hunting, and often defend their owning defense weapons as hunting weapons because people try to wrongfully make them feel bad for enjoying their own property that they own as a God-given right.
That has always been a problem. Huge steak knives aren't banned, but small butterfly knives are. Why? Because there were several movies where ninjas and triads used butterfly knives because you can open them in a cool way one-handed. Switchblade knives have particularly seen bans, with no particular logic as to why they are but giant turkey carving knives, clearly far more dangerous, are not. Follow what the hitmen, ninjas and assassins use in the movies and you will see that is what they try to ban. If they ever start killing people with bags of marshmellows in the movies, expect to see calls for marshmellow bans.
The great thing about ARs is they can be used for both. Whether it's the standard 5.56 or even a 300 blackout, they make great defense weapons, but can also be used for hunting. A 30 caliber is preferable, but if you only have 1 gun, I would recommend AR-15.
When i read comments like this, I wonder if people really think the military uses ar15's, or if they know there's a difference but just ignore it.
Nope. The whole point is we don’t expect them to so we will know who the last law abiding person to own the gun also the first criminal to own the gun
I’m curious what you believe is the significant difference?
I'm not intending to repeatedly quote you, but I want to make sure if you're being serious or not.
The Ar15 IS more a hunting a rifle than a weapon of war. It's actually used for hunting, and not by the army. It was specifically and intentionally made to be a civilian rifle that looked like the M16.
Also, the 1/4 of mass shootings comment struck me. That would lead someone to believe that 3 times as many mass shootings (3/4) were done using "safe" guns.
You do not want to use your M4 as a fully automatic weapon in combat. You have actual automatic weapons you use for suppressing fire. You want targeted rounds down range with your M4s.
The M16s were originally full auto, but they switched to a three round burst because they realize how ineffective it was as a automatic weapon.
True, but you forget what the British government did next; which was bring in the troops to suppress the people. The colonists formed militias(they’d already had some during the French and Indian War), and began to stockpile weapons, powder and shot. The British troops set out from Boston to seize those weapons, and the militia leaders. We all know what happened next: some “poor, ignorant, untrained militiaman" decided he’s had enough of British Tyranny enforced by the invincible British Army, and fired the first shot. We don’t know who he was, but that one man was brave enough to die rather than give in. The other part that you leave out, is that those “ignorant, untrained rabble” finally got assembled in numbers, and gave the Brits one hell of a bloody nose on their way back to Boston. We all know what happened a little over a year later. You probably think the U.S. Military is invincible. It is not. An insurgency, with capable men (which, should our own government turn on the people, and have a politicized military side with it) would have in its ranks numerous U.S. combat veterans, would not be so easy to defeat. It would of course take extremely heavy casualties, but if desperate enough, might be able to maintain a force in being sufficient to prevail. Remember, just as we learned in Vietnam and later in Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgents do NOT have to actually win; all they have to do is not lose, which is exactly what happened with the Brits in our own Revolution, and happened to the U.S. several times since. The lesson: a disarmed population are helpless subjects; a population of armed citizens is very much a deterrent to tyranny. Hopefully we will never need that deterrent, but it’s nice to know we have it, just in case some political faction tries to do the unthinkable. Think of it as an insurance policy for our Constitution, which if you read the writings of Jefferson, is precisely what was intended. I hope we never have to find out whether it’s enough...
I would say fully automatic to semi automatic is the one huge difference. Barrel length is minimal in my mind.
Without the fully automatic function, the ar is just like any other semi auto rifle, even those with wood stocks and rifle grips that are supposedly "okay".
I appreciate you for not trying to make an argument about the gas tube or barrel length because like you said those things are minimal.
This guy is 21 years old? Looks more like 30 years old.. This Chinese Virus has cause people to do stupid and crazy things and being locked up by the nanny state has taken a toll the mental health of folks...
ahmad-al-aliwi-alissa.jpg
www.foxnews.com
ahmad-al-aliwi-alissa.jpg
Boulder shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa: What we know
More details are emerging the day after a 21-year-old identified as the alleged suspect killed 10 people, including a police officer, during a mass shooting at a Boulder, Colorado, grocery store this week.
Last edited:
Not using fully auto is a matter of opinion. There are times for it, which is why the m4 has the capability. (Edit: but I agree that it is not the dominant setting to be used)
And yes, the m16 has variations with burst and fully auto.
Agree,. Maybe we should be looking at the chemicals and substances in our food that makes people wacky
Agreed.
I also find some of the complaints about the ar15 (pistol grip for example) to be minimal as well.
If I wanted to have a real debate, I'd start with burst/auto capacity, and magazine sizes as a distant second. (As functions of the weapon, not debates on sales or documentation).
There really aren’t any intentional times you would use the full auto option. You just don’t carry enough rounds for it to ever to be in your best interest.
The only time I can think to use it is if you’re being overrun and death is imminent. But even then you’re going to spend more time reloading than shooting.
I think you mistyped that statement, but I think I know what you are saying.
My comment was because you said the AR was a "weapon of war". I contend that it is not, evidenced bythe US military not using it, and it actually being made as a civilian rifle that looks like the military rifle.
Just so you're accurate, the AR15 came first. Then the military adopted the platform for M16.
Well, you gotta admit, an AR15 is not a good weapon for duck hunting. I'd really be Impressed if you you hit a quail with one on the fly 😂😂
That is certainly an opinion.
Semi auto is certainly the most prominently used setting and rightfully so. I'd agree to that easily.
- Status
